Category: Catholic Social Thought

If I reflect back on my time in law school (I graduated 10 years ago) and my period working in a law school (which lasted roughly 5 years), there is a good chance I read more books and articles by Richard Epstein than any other soul. Epstein, an emeritus professor of the University of Chicago Law School and current professor at New York University School of Law, is easily the most influential libertarian legal academic in history. Though he has made some intellectual shifts over the decades, such as foregoing his youthful commitment to deontological libertarianism in favor of the consequentialist libertarianism often touted by those associated with the Law & Economics (L&E) movement, Epstein has remained surprisingly consistent in his belief that a good system of private law (torts, contracts, and property) can do a better job than public regulation in producing positive social-welfare gains. And though it seems like Epstein has written on every legal field under the sun (including Roman law), his primary focus remains private law and classical doctrinal analysis.

In a recent issue of the University of Chicago Law Review, Epstein comes to the defense of his preferred realm of legal concepts with an illuminating essay, “Concepts before Percepts: The Central Place of Doctrine in Legal Scholarship.” Epstein is disappointed that “the legal academy is awash in novel approaches to law, driven by a deep distaste for doctrinal analysis” for “[t]here is a strong push for empirical research, economic modeling and philosophical speculation, all at the expense of traditional doctrinal analysis based on close reading of decided cases.” As an empirical matter, Epstein is right. Ever since L&E took off in the 1970s, law review editors have found themselves drowning in submissions promising to revolutionize some area of the law by blending it with another academic discipline (philosophy, literature, basket weaving, etc.). Moreover, a premium is now placed on empirical analysis and fancy formulas, probably because they help make legal academia “look like” other, arguably more respected, fields. Without wishing to say there is no place in legal academia for such scholarship, there comes a point when it is necessary to look at the legal system itself and see if it is accomplishing what it ought to.

But herein lies the problem with Epstein’s article and, indeed, much of Epstein’s scholarship. Only by accepting Epstein’s conviction that the social end of the legal system ought to be “maximiz[ing] the welfare of all individuals under inevitable conditions of scarcity.” For Epstein, this means leaning on the “Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks measures of social welfare” because “they respect the subjectivity of individual preferences while using a compensation formula to measure collective social welfare.” Nowhere in Epstein’s writings is a clear defense of this position over-and-against thicker understandings of the common good, particularly the sort promoted by the Catholic intellectual tradition. Ultimately, what Epstein wants is a legal system that respects freedom of contract and property rights above all else, with the tort law serving as a private regulator of material harms. It is the market, not a clear conception of the common good, which orders society; any encroachment on free competition is anathema except in rare instances where there is a restraint on trade, such as cartelization.

This is a position no Catholic can accept, as Pope Pius XI made perfectly clear in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno.

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles – social justice and social charity – must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. Social charity, moreover, ought to be as the soul of this order, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend.

Of course, I don’t expect that Epstein, a man who has kept his religious leanings to himself, to accept the magisterial teachings of the Church. However, those Catholics inclined to agree with Epstein’s approach to law and the economy ought to think twice about how far they are willing to follow Epstein down his libertarian path. Even though Epstein has provided some of the best and most spirited defenses of a strong system of private law available, it is his unquestioned ideological attachment to certain libertarian premises behind his view of what the private law ought to look like which renders that view unacceptable by Catholic lights. Further, while Epstein’s instincts do appear to be in the right place with regard to private law holding a higher position in the social order over public regulation, the latter cannot be set aside or reduced to the level Epstein and other libertarians wish to see. Even freedom of contract—one of Epstein’s preferred legal doctrines—must be scrutinized in the light of what is being contracted for. For while there is no sensible reason Farmer Bob can’t contract to trade 10 chickens for Farmer Joe’s prized sow, it’s a different story altogether when Farmer Bob is contracting to pimp out his wife for that pig.

Much to my delight, a kerfuffle has broken out over George Weigel’s ill-conceived column, “Let’s Not Make a Deal…At Least Not This Deal,” which takes aim at the (possibly?) pending regularization of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Weigel’s concerns are twofold. First, he objects specifically to the Society’s opposition to certain Vatican II novelties, particularly the Council’s controversial declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Second, and more generally, he believes that if the SSPX should be regularized without foregoing its criticisms of the Council and its questionable fruits, it will kick open the doors to more dissent from Leftwing Catholics (is that even possible?). Though not discussed in detail, no doubt Weigel was also motivated to write his column by the simple fact Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society he founded committed the unpardonable sin of defying “The Great” Pope John Paul II with the 1988 episcopal consecrations. For Weigel, John Paul II is a singular figure of world-historical importance who, according to the type of neo-Catholic narrative Weigel himself promotes, made way for the triumph of neoliberalism by standing firm against Eastern bloc communism. To stand against John Paul II is to stand against the liberal order itself, or so Weigel thinks.

In response, Rorate Caeli ran a guest op-ed by Patrick J. Smith which calls attention to the reality that the interpretation and application of Conciliar texts like Dignitatis is not an open-and-closed affair. Here is Smith.

It is, of course, by no means clear that the Society actually dissents from or rejects Church teaching. Given the text and history of Dignitatis humanae itself, it is not clear what Dignitatis humanae actually means, and, therefore, it is impossible to say what dissent looks like. Even if the Declaration were wholly clear, that would not resolve the question. In 2014, the International Theological Commission issued a very lengthy document, “Sensus fidei in the life of the Church,” which discussed the sensus fidei, “a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith” (para. 49). The document observes that, “[a]lerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd” (para. 63). Given the sharp distinctions between Dignitatis humanae and the teachings of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and other good and holy popes, it seems eminently reasonable to discuss the Society’s position in terms of the reaction of an authentic sensus fidei. With all of this in mind, one must ask whether it is George Weigel who is staking out a position for largely political reasons.

More recently, over at Ethika Politika, Thomas Storck enters the discussion by highlighting the threat the SSPX poses to Weigel’s project of blending Catholicism and liberalism.

The truth of the matter is, that Weigel sees a threat to his cherished project of reconciling classical liberalism with Catholic doctrine, a project quite common among American conservative Catholics. Take away the supposed generalized right to religious liberty, and you take away the lynchpin of liberal society. Eventually the liberal minimalist state, the market economy, and the right of each individual to pursue happiness after his own fancy will all fall in turn. And George Weigel cannot permit that. Thus his attempt to link the SSPX to the Catholic left’s attacks on faith and morals, when in fact, it is Weigel and his like who provided and provide the basic justification for those who would like to alter Catholic teaching.

There is, however, an important limit to how far I can agree with Storck’s article. His excellent evaluation of Weigel’s panic is marred by the following declaration: “I am no particular friend of the SSPX. I think their disobedience unjustified, their rhetoric often shrill, and some of their critiques of post-conciliar developments in the Church wooden.”

Personally, I don’t recognize this SSPX to which Storck refers, though it’s possible that Storck—like others who criticize the Society—conflate the opinions of every SSPX cleric and layman who attends a Society chapel with the official positions of the Society itself. Moreover, it is strange to knock the SSPX for being “disobedient” when that disobedience—followed in good conscience—is why Catholics enjoy access to the Tridentine Mass to a degree not seen since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is also a major reason why critical discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the problem of liberalism in the Church was not snuffed out in the 1970s. While reasonable persons can disagree with this-or-that statement made by Archbishop Lefebvre or offer up contrary positions on certain unsettled theological topics, no faithful Catholic should forget the singular contribution the SSPX has made to keeping the light of traditional burning through the dark decades of a doctrinal, spiritual, and moral crisis which continues to afflict the Mystical Body of Christ.

As for Weigel and the ideology he represents, there is some reason to hope that the Church, at least in America, is starting to turn the corner (or, at the very least, keep around it). As I wrote about a couple of years ago for Front Porch Republic, various strands of what has been called “illiberal Catholicism” have emerged to counter the liberal position. Integralism, which promotes the proper understanding of the relationship between Church and state, now has a seat at the discussion table. Weigel might fear that his life’s work is starting to come undone, though he shouldn’t. Instead he should rejoice that his errors may not infect future generations and give thanks to God for the time given to reflect, retract, and repent of any conscious misstatements or mischaracterizations of doctrine he has made during his lifetime.

When Francis ascended the papal chair in 2013, some Catholics long dissatisfied with the unholy union of Catholic social teaching and liberal economics thought the winds of change were in the air. Despite teaching clearly against the tenets of neoliberalism, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI seemed all that interested in disabusing economic liberals of their false principles. Not so with Papa Frank. From his first official papal writing, Evangelii Gaudium, on through his numerous (sometimes problematic) sermons and interviews, Francis has never shied away from calling free-market ideology and greed on the carpet. Unfortunately, due in part to the fast-and-loose manner in which he handles other tenets of Catholic doctrine, many economic liberals have felt entitled to ignore the current Pontiff when it comes to things economic, arguing—with thin plausibility—that the Pope has no authority to instruct on economic matters and that liberal economics is a “science” like biology and physics, hence beyond questioning. Now that we are in the fifth year of Francis’s reign, it doesn’t seem like much has changed. Many conservative Catholics (not to mention more than a few traditionalists) are quite content to ignore him on economic issues, and the Acton Institute—one of the leading propagandists of Catholicism/liberalism fusion—is still going strong. In fact, just today Samuel Gregg, Acton’s Research Director, has an article up over at The Stream opining how to “make America great again” with no mention of Christ or the Church, but plenty to say on deregulation and “crony capitalism” (Acton’s favorite boogeyman).

And that is why enterprises such as Acton are so dangerous. For even though Gregg acknowledges that “[e]conomic growth isn’t the solution to all of humanity’s problems,” he and his cohorts seem to be perpetually blind to the truth that what people need above all else is Christ. Surely Gregg would acknowledge that even the best laid plans of liberal economists will not yield positive results across the board, and that unanticipated external shocks, ranging from famine to war, can quickly erode any potential economic gains made from deregulating specific industries or encouraging free trade. (It is a liberal myth that economic growth and integration leads to a cessation of crossborder hostilities.) Unfortunately, Gregg remains enthralled by the idea that a “rightly ordered” (read: liberal) economy will lead to social harmony, and this enthrallment seems to keep him from acknowledging widely that man’s final end is not two cars in the garage and a 4K Ultra HD TV but eternal beatitude with God. The Acton Institute likes to speak a great deal about “markets and morality” but has shockingly little to say on the latter. The market, in the Acton schema, stands above morality.

That this should be the dominant thinking of the Acton Institute is not at all surprising. Despite having a number of Catholics at the helm and directing a great deal of its resources toward Catholic audiences, Acton eschews publicly referring to itself as “Catholic,” no doubt to curry favor with donors and audiences who do not accept the Catholic Faith. Due to its “ecumenical” character, Acton cannot risk promoting the Church over-and-against material matters, the sort that brings in large grants from the Koch Brothers and the DeVos family. In the end, Acton is not concerned with the Christianization of society but rather with the promotion of a liberal economic agenda not at all dissimilar from what is advocated by quite secular think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. While all three may have quibbles at the margins concerning certain policy prescriptions and theoretical concerns, they are tied together by a commitment to free-market capitalism secured by liberal ideology.

Although some pockets of resistance to the Acton Institute and other Catholic economic liberals have emerged over the years, they remain small, disorganized, and underfunded. (In a socio-economic environment where capitalism funnels lifeblood to the economic elites, who with wealth would dare oppose it?) The Church, which remains in the midst of a grave doctrinal and moral crisis, is not in a position to confront economic liberalism in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner; Pope Francis’s declarations, as noted, have been marginalized. As for the Church’s social magisterium as a whole, while the express words of Leo XIII and Pius XI indict the Actonite project through and through, that has not been enough to lead those Catholics associated with Acton to renounce their errors and work for the renewal of society in an authentically Catholic manner.

So what is to be done? If an organized counterweight to the Acton Institute and other liberal efforts is not immediately available, then those who are committed to promoting the Church’s full social magisterium, be they integralists, radical Catholics, or otherwise, should never sit idly by when they see economic errors enter into circulation. Do not ignore the Acton Institute as a harmless or distant problem; confront what it promotes and hold up for all to see that the liberalism it subscribes to has been condemned roundly by the Church for centuries. Do not fear when the liberals speak in economic jargon, for often they seek to drown reasoned disputation in a flood of terminology rather than engage arguments openly. Finally, do not give-in to malice or hatred; all correction should be carried forth with charity. Many who walk down the path of economic liberalism do so because they have not fully investigated the matter or have been told falsehoods by those who ought to know better. Talk to them; engage with them; and certainly, above all, pray for them. The errors of liberalism cannot be overcome on the natural plane alone.

Abram Van Engen, an associate professor of English at Washington University who recently published a book on the intersection of Calvinist theology and politics in New England, is pleading with people not to conflate Calvinism (or, more accurately, the Calvinism of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC)) with the political positions of one Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. Van Engen is concerned that that the mainstream media is making too much out of DeVos’s ties to the CRC and Calvin College, a private academic institution in Grand Rapids, MI which boasts both DeVos and Van Engen among its alumni. Welcome to America, where it has been a time-honored tradition since before the founding of this liberal polity to tar-and-feather Christians for their religious affiliation, only most of that was directed at Catholics and came not from the secular media, but Van Engen’s forebears. This is not to say that secularists haven’t had a field day going after Catholic politicians, judges, academics, journalists, etc. for their religious beliefs in more recent times; it’s only that it’s a tad bit ironic to find a Calvinist crying “foul!” over a tactic his coreligionists once employed wantonly.

As for the substance of Van Engen’s apologia, which has as its central thesis that Calvinists can indeed be good secularists, too, and that DeVos’s views are not necessarily a perfect reflection of the amorphous orthodoxy of the CRC, he’s probably right. Growing up in DeVos’s West Michigan, I can certainly attest that many CRC-goers are as secularized, liberal, intramundane, and materialist as the finest products of the American public-education system. The CRC, no less than other “magisterial” Protestant sects, has had no problem dialing-down its beliefs to fit with the times while turning the Great Commission into a call for social-justice action.

Consider, for instance, Van Engen’s discussion of the Reformed trope “advancing God’s kingdom.” That phrase is not a call for theocracy, Van Engen assures, but rather “a service-oriented vision of vocation.” At Calvin College “[s]tudents are called to serve, and they can serve in many ways” such as “regularly . . . work[ing] in the world for racial reconciliation. Why? Because racial reconciliation advances God’s kingdom.” Does it? Setting aside the fact that “racial reconciliation” is, at best, an ambiguous concept, there is no Scriptural basis for holding that the Kingdom of God amounts to a liberal-democratic dreamland to be established on this side of the eschaton, nor are “racial issues” (in the contemporary, secular sense) in themselves a concern of the Gospel. Yes, all men are made in the image and likeness of God, and racialism has no place in the Christian consciousness (especially since it is a modern ideological construct), but marching during a “Black Lives Matter” protest is a far cry from leading souls to Heaven.

Let me express in no uncertain terms with Van Engen’s observation that “those who pray together ‘thy kingdom come’ in the Lord’s Prayer, across many different Christian faith traditions every day, can still disagree quite powerfully about what exactly that kingdom looks like and how it comes about.” For Apostolic Christians whose horizon has not be clouded—such as faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox—Christ’s Kingdom remains “not of this world”; “for we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14). Or, to quote from the Epistle to Diogentus, they “live in their own countries as though they were only passing through.” Whatever concerns Christians once, and always should, have with earthly cares means nothing unless it is oriented toward man’s final end, God.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that American Catholicism, no less than Van Engen’s cherished CRC, is riddled with compromises, contradictions, and outright capitulations to the liberal status quo. Many American Catholics would likely agree with Van Engen’s tactic of trying to show why being a “good Calvinist” (of the CRC variety) can mean being a “good American,” which, in the end, means being a good secularist. For shame. However, faithful Catholics can at least take comfort in the fact that the Church’s authentic doctrine is unblemished, that her true teachings on the proper relation of Church and state remain—as they say—“on the books,” and that regardless of the world’s temptations, the only true peace, joy, and happiness, like “every perfect gift,” “is from above, coming down to use from the Father of lights” (James 1:17) rather than spewing forth from the liberal ideology that dominates here below.

Much has been written about the revival of “white nationalism” in the United States due to the ascendency of the alt-right. Most of it isn’t very good. Originating as a mixture of dark humor, trolling, and unaccountable venting on forums such as 4chan, the alt-right, according to many in the Left, is a political force to be reckoned with. That some, if not many, of those who claim to identify with the alt-right are both white and nationalist is not in dispute. What’s not entirely clear is if the alt-right represents a distinct and coherent political movement rather than just an amalgamation of dissenters, online troublemakers, and old-fashioned fever-swamp racists.

The only interest I have in the alt-right is why so many Catholics (many of them traditional) are drawn to it, especially given the Church’s historic condemnations of liberalism, racism, and nationalism. Keep in mind that despite its ostensibly extreme views, the alt-right is a liberal movement; it buys into the idea that democracy is a proper vehicle for political change and that religion has, at best, salutary function in maintaining social cohesion. (It is worth noting that many alt-righters, at least those who inhabit some of the darker regions of the Internet, are virulently anti-Christian.) As best as I can tell, the alt-right fills a certain vacuum for Catholics who have long felt disenfranchised from mainline American politics, liberal or conservative. Instead of banding together to form authentically Catholic political organizations in the United States, these individuals are leaping aboard the alt-right bandwagon in the hopes of gaining some measure of relevance in today’s fractured political landscape. Will it work? I’m skeptical. For though the alt-right or, really, the forthcoming Trump Presidency may deliver on certain promises relating to health-care reform, stricter immigration rules, and trade, “pelvic issues” such as same-sex marriage and abortion are unlikely to be touched.

Some might object here and claim that nationalism is no bad thing; it’s just an expression of patriotism, which the Church has never condemned. Indeed, Catholic teaching holds that patriotism can be a virtue (within limits). The problem with nationalism, particularly in its American guise, is that it often degrades into a political religion; the nation takes primacy of place over God and the Church. Even heavily Catholic areas, such as Galicia (west Ukraine) during the interwar period, risked succumbing to nationalism as a political religion due to both the passions of the people for self-determination and the uncertainty which loomed on the horizon due to the rise of Soviet Russia and the reassertion of Polish control of the region following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While Ukrainian nationalists could not be prevented in full from carrying out terrorist attacks, including ethnic cleansing operations, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) was able to serve as a check on nationalist ideology by both condemning violence and asserting the priority of the Church over politics. Without deep roots in Galicia, however, it is doubtful the UGCC would have had any success, and whatever success it did have dissipated by the 1940s with the invasion of the Soviets and the destruction of the Ukrainian Church.

What certain UGCC churchmen proposed at the time was a form of Christian nationalism, perhaps best exemplified by St. Mykola Konrad’s declaration: “The sword and the cross—this is the only hope of nations and humankind for a new and better tomorrow.” Konrad, like other UGCC clerics who supported Ukrainian independence within the limits of Church teaching, envisioned a social order that rejected both capitalism and communism; it was not built upon secular nationalism, but rather Christianity. Such a vision was sustainable only to the extent that the UGCC was willing to assert indirect temporal authority over Galician society by not only reminding the faithful of their duties before God, but also building-up the necessary infrastructure for a Christian state (e.g., schools, literacy programs, charitable organizations, etc.). What was sorely lacking during this period was meaningful and sustained external support, the sort which would have checked Polish nervousness over Ukraine and provided the fledgling nation with the means to defend itself from Soviet encroachment. It is little wonder then that the entrance of Nazi Germany into Galicia, and its promise to combat the Russians, was met initially with approval from Greek-Catholic authorities, including Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky. That approval quickly dissolved into disgust once it became apparent to Metropolitan Andrei and others what the Nazis truly intended to do to the peoples of Ukraine, Jew and Gentile alike.

In America, despite what certain campfire stories claim, the Catholic Church has no deep roots. It is not, how shall I say, an integral part of the American enterprise, nor has it exercised any meaningful influence on society in politics, local or national, in a great number of years. If indeed more and more disaffected Catholics begin flocking to nationalism, either in its alt-right variety or some other equally unsettling form, the American Church can do very little about it. Oh, perhaps some liberal bishop or cardinal may opt to speak out against the alt-right, nationalism, or Trump’s policy platform, but their voice will be easily ignored. Why? Because the Catholic Church in the United States mortgaged its authority a long time ago. Between the still-ongoing sex-abuse crisis and gross revelations about the sexual behavior of seminarians, priests, and bishops, the American Church is bereft of moral credibility. Moreover, intentional injections of confusion into what the Church has always taught concerning marriage, divorce, and the sacraments has left many conservative and traditional Catholics feeling shepherdless. If the Church is so disorganized, corrupt, and beholden to liberalism, what does it matter if her leaders today are uncomfortable with nationalism? Nationalism, for all of its faults, at least provides the hope of surety, the promise of binding people together for a common destiny even if it is intramundane.

Nothing will change until the faithful are awakened from their secular slumber. The problem that remains is who will lead this awakening? If the “approved authorities,” either in America or Rome, cannot speak with credible voices, then who can? It is not enough to run, hide in a ghetto, and “wait for St. Benedict.” Now more than ever we need to be roused by St. John the Baptist. But if such rousing occurs, it will come with great personal and professional costs to the faithful. The time has long past for Catholics to live as Catholics and do so in harmony with the secular-liberal order. The nationalism now running amuck in America is a temptation for Catholics, and like all temptations it comes from the devil. Like other modern ideological manifestations, it dangles the dubious hope that Christians can be both in the world and of it, that we can indeed have an earthly home, and that our greatest reward lies not in Heaven above but down in the mire below.

As most readers know by now, I have appeared on Magnificat Radio’s weekly show, Church and State, several times over the past year. Magnificat Media, which runs the radio feed, is currently in the midst of a November fund drive with the aim of raising $25,000 by the close of this month. Further information on the appeal, along with a link to make an online donation, can be found on their website.

For those who have not had a chance to listen to my Church and State appearances can easily do so through the links to SoundCloud below.

Earlier this morning I had the pleasure of being on The UnCommon Goodon Iowa Catholic Radio with Bo Bonner and Bud Marr. The show will re-air tonight at 9pm CST/8pm EST or you can head on over to iTunes and download the November 2 episode from there. Topics discussed include a bit of my journey form libertarianism to the Church’s social teaching on economics; what Catholics can bring to the table politically; and what modest, but practical, steps Catholics can take today toward economic solidarity. I apologize in advance if I sound a bit “off” during the program. I am battling back a rather nasty illness.

After listening, please be sure to check out the show’s entire archive. It’s well worth listening to.

Whenever I start to wonder why the Catholic Church in America is so bloodless, confused, and indifferent toward the deposit of faith, I quickly peruse the websites of Patheos, First Things, and the National Catholic Reporter to find my answers. This year’s “Reformation Day,” coupled with a certain notorious papal visit to Sweden, has really brought out the worst in some people, and by the “worst” I mean the worst sort of equivocating in the name of “dialogue” and “unity.” In times past, I thought one of the central problems with post-Vatican II American Catholicism is its inordinate desire to be accepted as “good liberals” in a secular democracy. It now seems to me that part of being accepted as such meant being accepted by the Protestant elites who, for all practical purposes, ran (and to some extent still run) America’s socio-political machinery. Things started to change a bit in the late 1970s when Catholics and Evangelicals became jointly concerned about abortion (and some other moral matters). Now, however, Catholics are desperate to divorce themselves from that “fever-swamp Christianity” of days gone by while looking to the collapsing mainline Protestant confessions for inspiration. Sometimes Catholics will call this “dialogue”; in truth it’s merely capitulation.

The Eastern Orthodox handle themselves a bit better, at least as far as rejecting limp-wristed ecumenism masked by vacuous terms like “encounter” and “witness” is concerned. Those with eyes to see know of course that American Orthodoxy, more than American Catholicism, struggles with “Protestant captivity,” largely due to the influx of converts into Orthodoxy’s fold during the 1990s and early 00s. While some of these converts have packed their bags and left, numerous influential Orthodox clerics (and a few laymen) continue to push for an Orthodoxy that amounts to little more than “Byzantine Rite Calvinism.” Heck, even well-meaning cradle Orthodox are often duped into believing that old-fashioned Protestant polemics against Rome, when dressed up with some Greek jargon, represents an authentic articulation of “true Orthodoxy” over-and-against “Papist errors.” This leads to all sorts of nonsense, such as fanciful distinctions between what the Orthodox have (allegedly) “always believed” and what Catholics now (allegedly) “do.” (Yes, I have been told straight up that among the (alleged) differences between Orthodox and Catholics, one can list Mary worship, statue worship, saint worship, and Communion worship.)

Perhaps it’s cliché to say that things will get worse before they get better, but let’s not forget that clichés are clichés for a reason. Regardless of what happens next Tuesday, there can be little doubt that the country will be even more politically torn apart than it already is. Christians (of whatever stripe) will have to select sides, and there will be plenty of finger pointing to go around. Those Catholics (and Protestants and Orthodox) who insist that we must vote for Donald Trump or else are going to remain at odds with those Catholics who follow the Church’s actual teachings when it comes to voting. That is to say, those Catholics who refuse to materially cooperate with evil are apt to be marginalized by both Left-wing Catholics (who, of course, have no problem materially cooperating with evil) and Right-wing Catholics, at least for a time. Remember: If Hillary Clinton prevails over Trump, it’s everyone’s fault for not violating their consciences or embracing “the lesser of two evils”; the fact that American conservative politics has degraded to the point where a buffoonish billionaire can hijack the Republican Party has nothing to do with it (or so they say).

Some harbor the hope that when the dust finally settles, a new, more diversified, politics might emerge and that Christians (specifically Catholics) will finally be able to have an unadulterated say in the direction of the Republican Party or, more likely, a new party that splinters from it. I am not so sure. If Trump-style “conservatism” is the new flavor of the decade (just as Tea-Party conservatism was briefly before), then it is likely that many conservative-to-traditional Catholics will choose remain faithful to that brand. Why? Because many are fearful of what is coming and the idea of a “strong man” savior will always be appealing, especially when the new political enemy is a woman. Also, the idea of Trump supporters openly embracing an orthodox form of Catholic politics is hard to fathom when such an embrace would mean that at the core everything they professed about the necessity of voting for someone like Trump is simply wrong. Sure, perhaps some of these well-meaning souls can be converted to the truth, but with so many traditionalist outlets doubling-down on the Donald, it is reasonable to fear that a significant contingent of their followers will never return to the light.

Given that every traditional argument for becoming a Catholic comes accompanied with an asterisk, I have suspended all efforts to kick-up any dirt over somebody choosing to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I mean is, it is difficult to expect a non-Catholic to easily embrace the “surety of Catholicism” and the “importance of the Papacy” during an unprecedented period of doctrinal chaos. Though it may be fashionable to look back into history and hold that today’s crisis “isn’t as bad” as the era of Arianism or the reign of Iconoclasm, the hard fact of the matter is that those tragic periods in Church history dealt primary with one central dogmatic issue (and then a host of peripheral theological ones). This time out, everything under the sun seems to be on the discussion table, with Catholic prelates all over the world sowing error on everything ranging from “same-sex marriage” to the historicity of the Resurrection. Maybe this could all be accounted for and endured if the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Francis, took affirmative steps to combat these problems, but he hasn’t—and nobody expects him to. Indeed, a mass of evidence has already accumulated that he knowingly contributes to the present crisis under a grossly distorted concept of “mercy.” Catholics of good will everywhere should, of course, give thanks to God that the Church still has good shepherds in her midst, but only after recognizing that those shepherds are few and far between. The hard reality today is that most Catholics are still lost in the wilderness.

As I have opined before, the Orthodox Church, by and large, has more doctrinally sound bishops, priests, and laity than contemporary Catholicism does. (I should note here that it appears that all of the Eastern Catholic churches, by and large, have more doctrinally sound bishops, priests, and laity than contemporary Latin Catholicism does.) What I have meant—and still mean—by this is that on any given Sunday, one is less likely to hear raw nonsense, if not objective heresy, preached from the pulpit in an Orthodox temple compared to a Catholic parish. Although I have witnessed many an Orthodox priest struggle to mutter an intelligible homily, what often makes it out of their mouths are simple, everyday reminders of what the Gospel message means coupled with a bit of history (depending on the liturgical day). Maybe it’s not “profound,” and certainly at times the Orthodox fall prey to clouding up basic points with useless mystical jargon and ahistorical declarations, but all of that is much easier to swallow than a cleric who begins his sermon with, “Today’s reading concerns what the author of the Gospel we attribute to John placed on the lips of Jesus . . .”

This is not to say that Orthodoxy—particularly American Orthodoxy—is not without its troubles. Just the other week, the Greek Orthodox Church presented pro-abortion, pro-homosexualist New York Governor Andrew Cuomo with the “[Patriarch] Athenagoras Human Rights Award.” Why? Because he helped the Greeks get the permits necessary to rebuild St. Nicholas Church, which was destroyed on 9/11. As most should know by now, the Greek Orthodox in America, much like their estranged Catholic brethren, have a long history of cozying up to Democratic politicians. Maybe this was all fine and well during the days when “Democrat” meant “New Deal” and “New Deal” meant social safety nets and industrial restraints intended to help laborers and the under-privileged, but those days are long behind us. No less than many average American Catholics, the Greek Orthodox seem content with the “privately opposed/publicly accepting” dichotomy on most pressing moral issues and cannot be bothered to take a stand against the rising tide of secularism in America.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those Orthodox who seem to align politically with certain traditionalist Catholics in believing Donald Trump and the alt-right will save them. Most of these poor souls are infected with “Russophilia” and believe, contrary to all available evidence, that “Holy Russia 2.0” is upon us. (If anybody needs a sobering account of why “Holy Russia 1.0” was not all that and a bag of chips, please see about purchasing a copy of the late Metropolitan Evlogy’s two-volume memoirs from St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.) For them, Kirill of Moscow is Pope, Vladimir Putin is Tsar, and the only crucial political issue of the day is, “How can we appease Russia?” Now, granted, many of these Orthodox have their instincts in the right place. There is, after all, no benefit in following Hillary Clinton’s plan of picking a war with Russia so that jihadists can control Syria, nor can any Christian be blamed for being leery of the Democratic Party after what it has done to help raze Middle Eastern Christianity over the past eight years. Still, it is unsettling how easily a noticeable segment of American Orthodoxy can have its political orientation steered by romanticism.

All of this is to say that while the choice to choose Orthodoxy over Catholicism makes sense on a certain level, particularly as far as “basic orthodoxy” is concerned, those wishing to acquire a “total package” of “pure Christianity” with an unbreakable moral compass may wish to take a few steps back. As confused as Catholic thinking is today on a great many issues, no one can seriously contend that the Catholic Church has not spoken—and spoken forcefully—on matters such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, just war, just wages, and so on and so forth. While Orthodoxy has exhibited moral clarity in the past, its confederate-style makeup coupled with (uncanonical?) jurisdictional overlap has created something of a free-for-all when it comes to moral choices. For instance, if a couple doesn’t care for what Fr. Barsanuphius has to say about the pill and rubbers, Fr. Panteleimon down the street can put their consciences at ease.

At the political level (the lowest level?), American Orthodoxy is weak—so weak as to be almost nonexistent. And that’s fine. Those faithful bands of Catholics truly dedicated to what the Church teaches regarding the common good are also weak numerically and materially. The vast majority of Christians living today, regardless of confessional adherence, have made their peace with liberalism; they have no use for a Gospel that still speaks literally of living in the world and not being of it. Orthodoxy, for all of its apparent “other-worldliness,” is just as susceptible to secularism as Catholicism. What is still unclear is that if Orthodoxy, in its modern American iteration, has the capacity to step outside of these times, to find that horizon beyond liberalism, and then push forth with the Great Commission in hand. Or, in the end, will its seemingly most faithful adherents retreat from the moment of decision to dwell in figurative caves where they might cry out to the sky to be saved from the absolute corruption into which they have been thrown? And will the Catholics join them? Heaven forbid.

I am equal parts astonished and horrified that at this depressingly low point in American political history there are still faithful Catholics—even young faithful Catholics—who keep clinging to the promise of liberalism, as if one more First Things article paying homage to the public square or another Ethika Politika piece on civic engagement or a Crisis entry that mentions Tocqueville and Kirk two-dozen times in the span of half-a-dozen paragraphs will reverse our fortunes and make America that great bastion of religious liberty and civic virtue which it allegedly was during some distant point in history now lost in the fog. Granted, there does exist a contingent of Catholics who believe that we have entered a post-liberal age where liberalism has collapsed in on itself, but how quickly do they fall into unimaginative rhetoric concerning multiculturalism, tolerance, freedom of speech, and other sacred cows of the liberal order. Even ostensibly Left-wing Catholics, posturing Marxist (or whatever), can’t extricate themselves from liberal strands of thought concerning equality, pluralism, and the promise of a life without demands but plenty of room for entertainment.

Not that things are much better on the conservative-to-traditional side of the divide. Out of a mixture of fear and cowardice, many Catholics of the conventional Right are fleeing to their strong man, Donald Trump, to save them from every socio-political hobgoblin under the sun. “A failure to vote for Trump is a vote for evil!” Now, some might not use the T-word, but everyone knows what is meant with Catholics—clerical and lay alike—call on the faithful to “use all reasonable means” at the polls to stop Hillary Clinton’s ascendency. Following this “logic,” it appears that voting for a third-party candidate amounts to a sin of omission.

If there is an authentically Catholic and airtight case for voting for The Donald, I haven’t come across it. Sure, Trump and the alt-right camp(s) that claim to support him speak a big game when it comes to globalism, immigration, international trade, and a plethora of domestic social ills, but it is doubtful that a Trump presidency will deliver what many Catholics have been fighting for over the decades, namely a repeal of so-called abortion rights. The most optimal time in recent history to curtail abortion came during the first term of the Bush II Presidency and the Republican Party failed to act. Now it is more than a decade later and abortion, just like same-sex “marriage” and over curtails to religious freedom, have been accepted as a normative part of American political life, even among a growing number of conservatives.

I make mention of all of this not to throw in the towel or set the stage to propose some “Option” which will save those who can afford to flee to out-of-the-way communities of likeminded folks dedicated to preserving their imported craft beers and immaculately bound books. For Catholics truly committed to the Faith in full, here is no other “option” than following the perennial teachings of the Church, stretching all the way back to the Apostolic period. Yes, Tertullian’s Apology reminds us that we have a duty to pray for our temporal rulers just as the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus recalls that Christians “live in their own countries as though they were only passing through.”

Some may be inclined to read this and other passages in the letter in a hyper-eschatological fashion, leading to the forsaking of politics for an endless gaze toward the Second Coming. Indeed, there is a powerful argument available that the Roman Church’s decision to shift the forthcoming Feast of Christ the King from the Sunday prior to the Feast of All Saints to the final Sunday of the liturgical year (on the eve of Advent) has, intentionally or not, helped pull Catholic consciousness away from the temporal sphere altogether. And yet it cannot be denied that, at least in the United States, there remains a continuing Catholic quest to make peace with the present age, to become part of the liberal order in toto, and forego the always uncertain quest for Heaven in favor of some decaying pleasures and breathing room during the time that remains.